July 11, 2011

We thought it was funny, at the press conference today, that Obama, in prepared remarks, used the word "sacred" in the sarcastic way right before using "sacred" in the serious way:

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors...

He needs a better editor! That use of sacred cows primes the listener to disbelieve his seriousness about keeping the trust with seniors. We're prompted to think of "sacred" things as things that people are wrongly leaving untouched!

By the way, the word "sacrifice" also appears in that sentence, and "sacrifice" has the same root as "sacred."

sacrifice (n.)
mid-13c., from O.Fr. sacrifise (12c.), from L. sacrificium, from sacrificus "performing priestly functions or sacrifices," from sacra "sacred rites" (prop. neut. pl. of sacer "sacred," see sacred) + root of facere "to do, perform" (see factitious). L. sacrificium is glossed in O.E. by ansegdniss. Sense of "something given up for the sake of another" is first recorded 1590s. Baseball sense first attested 1880.

sacred
c.1300, from pp. of obsolete verb sacren "to make holy" (early 13c.), from O.Fr. sacrer (12c.), from L. sacrare "to make sacred, consecrate," from sacer (gen. sacri) "sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed," from O.L. saceres, which Tucker connects to base *saq- "bind, restrict, enclose, protect," explaining that "words for both 'oath' & 'curse' are regularly words of 'binding.' " But Buck merely groups it with Oscan sakrim, Umbrian sacra and calls it "a distinctive Italic group, without any clear outside connections." Nasalized form is sancire "make sacred, confirm, ratify, ordain." Sacred cow "object of Hindu veneration," is from 1891; figurative sense of "one who must not be criticized" is first recorded 1910, reflecting Western views of Hinduism.

Perhaps, out of respect for Hinduism, we should refrain from using the term "sacred cow." Perhaps respect for religion should lead us away from using the words "sacred" and "sacrifice" casually. But surely, if you want to demonstrate your somber, serious dedication by festooning your rhetoric with the words "sacred" and "sacrifice," you should nix the expression "sacred cow" — which is all about saying people are silly to regard something as holy.

Professor;I'm not one to critique a blogger regarding their posting style but a la "you had me at hello", your headline alone with a link to transcript of speech itself was all I needed. (You know, the way Glenn Reynolds does it.)

I wish I could find the link, but Insta posted something a week or so ago going through an exercise in balance. So much tax increase for an equal amount of spending reduction and using real numbers, not the DC-centric "baseline" budgeting methods.

I didn't have a lot of time to parse the numbers, but his findings, when projected out only five years or so, were startling.

I don't think that his "shared sacrifice" idea is going to take root or gain traction. Americans know that a lot of people are exempt from this "shared sacrifice".

The government union employees were asked to share some of the sacrifice in Wisconsin recently, as well as in much of the rest of the country. And, they flatly refused. They demanded special rights, including far more generous pensions and benefits than those of the people having to pay for the pensions and benefits of the government employees.

We all know that a lot of the stimulus money went to maintain these pensions and benefits. GE and Chrysler stake holders were butchered by the Administration to protect union pensions and benefits - with non-union employees losing most of theirs so that the union employees would not.

We also know that almost half of the country does not pay any income taxes, and under Obama, would continue to not do so. His proposed tax increases fall primarily on those who are already paying most of the taxes in this country.

So, in the end, a lot of Americans are going to see his rhetoric about "shared sacrifices" meaning that the productive and innovative sectors of this country, despite paying most of the taxes already, need to have their taxes increased even more, to support the "poor", the lazy, the really rich, and government employees.

Based on the Althouse reasoning that lead to her Obama vote, I believe that Flava Flav could have also won in 08, and I don't see how it would have made any difference to the outcome we now have in 2011.

I agree that a good editor would have separated the scared from the secular, but I guess would have kept "sacred cow" as a common trite expression that still has some use-- unless of curse if nothing is sacred in politics.

We all know that a lot of the stimulus money went to maintain these pensions and benefits. GM and Chrysler stake holders were butchered by the Administration to protect union pensions and benefits - with non-union employees losing most of theirs so that the union employees would not.

I originally said GE, not GM. But, GE is in there prominently too, by probably being the biggest crony capitalist in this country (some of the Wall Street firms are competitive there). They pay effectively no U.S. corporate taxes. But, they got TARP funds (and became a "bank" almost overnight to do this, compared to real banks that need years to overcome the regulatory hurdles) and a large chunk of the green energy funds. And their boss is one of Obama's economic advisers, as well as being touted for the next Commerce or Treasury Secretary. It didn't help that their NBC/MSNBC subsidiary operated as an arm of the DNC/Obama election/reelection campaign.

I seriously doubt that Obama's call for shared sacrifice extended to General Electric.

He needs a better editor! Don't tell us you just realized this. I thought Bill Clinton's speeches were so banal, the only thing interesting about him was parsing his outs. Obama doesn't even offer that diversion, just mendacity, snideness and narcissism.

and became a "bank" almost overnight to do thisI read somewhere in the 90's or early 00's that the majority of their earnings were coming from GE Finance, ie moneylending. The only appliances that made money from sales (not parts) were the high-end refrigerators.

The guy is giving an economic speech once a day right now to the public (not press conference, since he's not taking questions). Of course they can't prepare a new speech everyday - such preparation would require you to have something new to say, perhaps void of empty platitudes.

That takes ideas and creativity and the ability to go 5 minutes without demonizing your opponents.

The use of hackneyed metaphors is an increasingly common rhetorical device of politicians, pundits, bureaucrats, special interests, and talking heads.

It can be a particularly condescending and irksome practice.

Political communications consultants advise politicians to use these banal metaphors to communicate “on the level” of the citizenry. Apparently we are not enlightened or smart enough to comprehend simple declarative sentences.

It is also an especially intellectually lazy form of communication. “Eat our peas, sacred cows, etc.” are rhetorically vapid, but an easy sentence. It is always much more difficult to speak plainly.

I keep hearing about this mythical shared sacrifice, but it seems a little light on the sharing. Obama adds trillions in spending. This is gong to bankrupt us, so his idea of "sharing sacrifice" is adding trillions in taxes while making a few paltry cosmetic cuts.

And further the private sector has borne virtually the entire cost of this recession. So while we're losing jobs we get to pay for the public sector to expand further.

These government leeches are sucking us down to husks with their greed.

...That’s where Ryan is now directing his fire. His spokesman tells me, “This Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was buried inside the President’s 2,700 page health-care law, and empowers 15 people with the authority to unilaterally slash spending as they see fit.” So coming up tomorrow, he reminds us, “Health and Human Services Secretary HHS Secretary Sebelius will explain and defend IPAB at the House Budget Committee hearing at 10 a.m. in Cannon 210.” That should be enlightening....

As a near senior citizen (or newly senior citizen according to many restaurants), I feel more like a sacrificial cow under Obama's plans. I'm wondering at what point I'll be too old, in too poor of health and of too little benefit to society to keep alive, so they'll just give me the little pills to kill my pain while I die instead of any curative treatment.

2nd Class Cadets at West Point ("Juniors" at colleges) are called "Cows." The reason for that is beyond the ken of common knowledge.

"And how much should we be changing our language for the sake of religion?"

Your language is your religion. How you use it is your business. First Amendment.

What in the name of all that's gracious is a "Hindu," or a "Christian," "Moslem," "Buddhist," "Baha'i," etc. If any such thing can be defined, that has to include a legal definition, which means legal entities have to (a) define what religion is, in legal terms of art, and (b) define, in law, the distinctions between religions.

Is there is a lawyer on earth who wants to do either of those tasks? No. So using the words "Moslem," "Hindu," "sacred," "religion," etc. (without defining them in legal terms of art) is chicanery.

...which is all about saying people are silly to regard something as holy.

This is a primary tenet of leftist ideology. There is no truth unless it is materialistic and measurable. Nothing is holy because nothing can be divine or related to divinity since there is no god.

Obama can't hide his feelings, his ideology. They are his upbringing, his formation. Obama believes nothing is sacred because he is a dialectical materialist. Is it any wonder he cannot keep his cows and seniors straight?

The notion of sacrifice takes a profane animal, such as a cow, and sacrifices it to the holy g-ds who are sacred. We don't do that anymore, but the idea of sacrifice is still the moving an item from the category of profane to the category of sacred.

There are things that are truly sacred: home, family, and virtue. We should never sacrifice them.

The things that are profane should be sacrificed. Government programs to bribe voters, and skim some for the politicians, at the expense of all citizens should be sacrificed.

Obama wants anti-sacrifice, to kill home, family and virtue for the benefit of government programs of bribery.

It's shameful that any editor of a major law review — much less the editor-in-chief (a/k/a "president") of the Harvard Law Review — should be so incompetent at Copy-Editing 101.

Or let me put it another way: That kind of glitch might be enough to effectively eliminate the chances of someone trying to "write onto" a law review in an open blind-graded competition. As in: If you're no more polished than this, we don't even want you as a mere member (much less a potential editor).